Update 1.29 — Experiment—Experience and Analysis—Synthesis

In this update, I will add more concepts to the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

I think that an important element of adaptive-defensive mechanisms is our ability to learn. Learning is a fascinating, complex, and comprehensive process, especially if we think about broadly understood education. However, I mean here learning as, for example:
— looking for ways to deal with a difficult situation;
— finding ways out of a hard and stressful situation;
— troubleshooting;
— discovering something new:
— dealing with new life situations;
— preparing for new tasks, challenges, jobs, etc.
— acquiring new skills;
— making changes in our life or acquiring new habits;
— etc.

So, if we are dealing with the above and similar issues, then surely adaptive-defensive mechanisms play a significant role here. Simply put, we need them to explore the world.

Now, then, the question arises, what learning terms can reflect particular adaptive-defensive mechanisms?

I think the following terms are suitable for this:
— Experience and Experiment, and
— Analysis and Synthesis.

Experience and Experiment correspond to a pair of mechanisms Introversion—Extraversion.

In turn, analysis and Synthesis correspond to a pair of mechanisms Perceiving—Judging.

Specifically:
—Experience — I think it fits the mechanism of — Introversion,
— Experiment — to the mechanism of — Extraversion,
— Analysis — to the mechanism of — Perceiving, and
— Synthesis — to the mechanism of — Judging.

For greater clarity, I will show the arrangement of the above terms in the diagram.

This diagram is a simplified diagram that I used to present the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

Below I present the full diagram with new concepts, namely, with Experience, Experiment, Analysis, and Synthesis.

So, as we can see in the diagram above, now the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms are as follows:

to be—subject, relation—experience—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION

to have—object, case—experiment—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION

to compete—action, movement—analysis—find and deal—
—PERCEIVING

to care—process, act—synthesis—planning and organization—
JUDGING

For greater clarity, I have also presented the above definitions in the table.

EXPERIENCE and EXPERIMENT

Why do these concepts actually correspond to each other?

As we can see in the diagrams above:

1. “Experiment” is opposite to “Experience”. But also, these two concepts are directly linked. In the diagram above, I illustrated it with arrows that connect these two concepts.
2. From “Experience” to “Experiment” (or vice versa), we can go through “analysis”.
3. From “Experience” to “Experiment” (or vice versa), we can go through “synthesis”.

Note to point —1.
“Experiment” is opposite to “Experience”, that is, these two concepts are directly linked.

“Experimenting” relates to the fact that thanks to “experimenting”, we can deal with various problems, issues, tasks, difficulties, etc.

We also “experiment” is we want to achieve a goal. It can be a tangible or intangible purpose. In other words, we “experiment” to achieve something or “to have” something. “Having” something that we need, or simply “having” something that we want.

In the Polish language, there is a fascinating word which we can associate with “experimenting”. This word is—załatwiać. It has a very broad meaning. It means, settle, arrange, fix, manage, negotiate, do, get, buy, steal, kill, etc. It meaning depends on the context, especially in everyday language. But in general it is about getting something that we want or getting things done in the way which we expect, or we need. This word was very popular during the communist era when people needed to be very resourceful and practical. There were always bigger or smaller shortages of something.

Anyway, I think that “experimenting” can also be associated with the Polish concept “załatwiać”. “Załatwiać” is a kind of “experimentation”. The kind of life “experimentation”. If we want “załatwiać” something or we want to do “experiment”, we must first:
— properly prepare;
— think about how to conduct getting things done (or experiment);
— adjust our mental state properly to have the right mood and fresh mind;
— it is worth having some predictions (hypotheses, scenarios, scripts, etc.) of what can happen and what we may possibly achieve;
— anticipate possible adversities or what may fail;
— try to remember (or record) the process of getting things done (or experimenting), to be able to reconstruct our experiment later and draw the appropriate conclusions for the future;
— etc.

In turn, “experiencing” relates to the fact that when we do something, we focus on achieving some experience or mental experience. Thanks to this “experience”, we will be able to feel valuable in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. Thanks to the “experience”.
— we will have something to tell:
— we will fascinate others:
— we will be in the spotlight;
— etc.

Therefore, thanks to “experiencing”, we will simply be someone. In other words, we “experience” something because we want “to be”.

“Experience” is also something that we can gain, get, acquire, collect, etc. We often gain experience by observing what is going on around us.

In general, we can observe:

• This, what is happening around us, so to speak, by itself (or spontaneously).
• Or this, what is happening around us with our help, or because of us. So we can provoke happening something. Thanks to this we can something:
  — observe;
  — conclude or make a statement related to it
  — convince ourselves about it (or to it);
  — make sure;
  — etc.

So, we are looking at some events that are happening now. We compare it with similar “experiences” that we had in the past. We analyze them. We wonder what is repeating, what is changing? What is very similar, and what is completely different? Etc. And thanks to that, we can find out what depends on what? It means, what are the dependencies that affect any repeating events, or what are the “relationships” between them. What “relationships” or connections exist between things, surrounding conditions, people, etc. How the things, surrounding conditions, and those who are involved, “influence” the given situation that something happened in one way, and not in the other way? Or why, something is constantly repeating, and it occurs in a particular way, or its course of action is still the same.

And all of that can help us determine how to set ourselves for specific people, events, circumstances, places, machines, things, animals, plants, etc. Generally speaking, determine how to behave in the world around us and what attitude to adopt. That is, how “to be” in the environment in which we are.

Summarizing:

• We try “to experiment” with something to achieve something else. Or we “experiment” “to have” something. So, “experimenting” helps us “to have”.
• We try “to experience” something to know what behavior is most appropriate, or how “to be” with someone, something, somewhere, etc. So, “experiencing” helps us “to be”.

As it turns out, “experience” and “experiment” although they have a lot in common, at the same time, they are very different from each other. During creating the Mandala of Characters many times, I came to the conclusion that what differs from each other (or it is oppositional with each other) depends only on one or several factors. However, this factor (or several factors) is very different. So, if we differ from someone in a lot of things, just a little bit, then, in fact, we are very similar to each other. And divide us can even only one, but very significant difference. Such a difference that one of us (or both of us) will not be able to accept.

All in all, it turns out that when we are oppositional, we have a lot in common. We differ in only one or several significant matters for both of us. And the more we become oppositional towards each other, the more important, serious, fundamental …, is this one (or several) matters for us.

Therefore, in the diagram presented earlier, we can see that:
— The “experiment” and “experience” are oppositional to each other.
— At the same time, the above oppositional concepts are directly connected to each other. Thus, they have direct contact with each other, and they can communicate very quickly. I think we can also say that there is a kind of feedback loop between them.

In that case, the question arises — how does the feedback between “experiment” and “experience” manifest itself?

I think this direct connection or feedback describes the phrases:
— “experimenting with some experience” or
— “experiencing the experiment”.

When we “experiment with experience” or ‘experience experimenting”, we combine two opposing general attitudes. That is, we combine Extraversion and Introversion.

When can this be done?

I think this will be most visible in these character types, which have “experimenting” or “experiencing” in their Conscious or Unconscious State. It means these are types, which are in the area of the greatest impact of Extraversion and Introversion. On the Mandala of Characters, we can see that these are types: Hot Fire, Hot Air, Cool Water, and Cool Earth.

Specifically:

• Hot Fire and Hot Air—are Extraverted in the Conscious State and Introverted in the Unconscious State. So, these types “experiment with experience”.
• Cool Water and Cool Earth—are Introverted in Conscious State and Extraverted in Unconscious State. So, these types “experience the experimenting”.

(I remind here that Conscious State is opposite to the Unconscious State).

Thus, between the above types in the greatest degree can occur feedback. The feedback which is happening between:
- “experimenting” (regarding extraversion),
- and “experience” (regarding introversion).

For greater clarity, I added the above character types to the diagram with adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

In the diagram we can see that:
— above the definition of Extraversion, I put the types Hot Fire and Hot Air,
— and below the definition of the Introversion are the types Cool Earth and Cool Water.

Thus, the above types occupy such a position as on the Mandala of Characters.

So, how can in these types manifest “experimenting with experiencing” or “experiencing experimentation”?

• Introverted types, that is, Cool Water and Cool Earth (the most Introverted types).

  Cool Water and Cool Earth, who “experience experimenting”—can, in a way, incomprehensible to others be passionate (or fascinated) in experimenting while they are working or when they are dealing with various matters. For example, they may with great enthusiasm and commitment:
  — do some work;
  — talk; — shop; — browse offers; — make some considerations; — analyze for a very long time some topic, issue, matter, etc.; — and so on.

  All these and similar activities are for them the “experiences”. And it is so in both, in the sense of “experiencing experiences”, as well as getting knowledge about something. Thus, during “experiencing”, these types have greater or smaller emotions and sensations.

  For example, the symptom of this is one interesting fact. It means many activities do not end for them at the moment of finishing them. In their psyche and mind, these activities continue for some time. Sometimes this time is short and sometimes very long. During this time, they experience and analyze the individual stages of their experience. Often, when some experience fascinates or moves them deeply, they are able to be intensively involved actually all the time for several or even many days. They experience, analyze, summarize, mentally prepare for a similar event in the future. So, when such an opportunity arises to come back to something, they will do it immediately. It is because they will rely on similar experiences, which they experienced before.

  Thus, this kind of behavior of Cool Water and Cool Earth can occur when there is a feedback loop between their Conscious and Unconscious states.



• Extraverted types, that is, Hot Air and Hot Fire (the most Extraverted types).

  Hot Air and Hot Fire when their Conscious and Unconscious States are directly connected to each other, they “experiment with experience”. Then these types are open to various experiences.

  However, they do not wait passively until some experiences come to them. They are somehow trying to find situations in which they will be able to experience something. So to speak, they try to meet opportunities on their own. They are trying to be there, where will appear some experiences. Or they, on their own, create reality and various events so that any desired experience will happen to them. In short, they try to arrange some “experiences”. That is, they do such experiments in their life to experience some “experiences”. Such experimentation requires a smaller or larger dose of Thinking and Intuition. The symptom of this can be, for example, that these types are quite mobile and they move around a lot. And it is so even if in fact the given situation rather does not require it. Often they are going here and there, as if they have to constantly something to check, to find, to arrange, etc. Many times they start some occupations and quickly abandon them if they find that it is not what they are looking for. Besides, they may not know what actually they are looking for? When they start so many activities and leave them unfinished, it looks as if they have launched a big campaign. The campaign where they have to deal with several fronts of work at the same time. Many tools and utensils lie spread out in different places. It really gives the impression that they are really very busy. Although, in reality, they can move slowly and unhurriedly among these several fronts of work. And even if they move quickly, their work is often done slowly. Also, delays and various additional problems and complications often accompany it. Problems and complications which nobody knows why they are appearing in front of these types.

  Hot Air and Hot Fire types can also consciously take too many things to do at once. Then, with great difficulty and commitment, they try to do everything on time. All in all, therefore, they on their own initiative “experience their own experiments”.

  So, this kind of behavior of the types Hot Air and Hot Fire can occur when they have the feedback loop between their Conscious and Unconscious States.

Note to point—2.
The way from “experiment” to “experience” (or vice versa) leads through “synthesis”.

In this case, the path from “experiment” to “experience” (or vice versa) is not direct. It leads through “synthesis”.

To “experiment with experience” or “experience experimentation” we just need to “synthesize” something.

As I talk about synthesis later in this update. I will now use the association with the concept that I added to the definition of Judging in the previous update (1.28). This concept is the infinitive—“to care”. “To care” is an indication of “Caring Social Mentality”. To use this mentality inspired me, Paul Gilbert. Among others, he is writing about it in one of his books “Mindful Compassion”.

“Caring” is a form of synthesis because, during caring, we have to synthesize many activities. Besides synthesizing many activities, we have to also properly plan and organize them.

So, if we associate “synthesis” with “caring”, then we can say that to “experimenting with experience” or “experience experimentation” we just need to “take care of” something. For example, take care of:
— the work performed;
— someone we care for, whom we cooperate with, who we do business with, who we spend time with, who we have fun with, etc.;
— the things we have to do;
— the problems we have to solve;
— etc.

In summary, the right “caring mentality” can help us to “experiment with experience” or “experience experimentation”.

Note to point—3.
The way from “experiment” to “experience” (or vice versa) leads through “analysis”.

In this case, the path from “experiment” to “experience” (or vice versa) is not direct. This time it leads through “analysis”.

As in the case of a mentioned moment ago—synthesis, I will talk about the analysis also later in this update. Thus, now I will use the association of the analysis with the concept that I add to the definition of Perceiving in update 1.28. I think here about the infinitive—“to compete”.

To use “to compete” also inspired me, Paul Gilbert, who distinguishes “Caring and Competitive Social Mentality”. “To compete” is just an abbreviation to the “Competitive Social Mentality”.

I associated the “Caring Social Mentality” with “synthesis” in the previous note 2. Now, I am going to associate the “Competitive Social Mentality” with “analysis”.

“Competing” is very much related to “analyzing”. We need to analyze our strength and weaknesses well. We also need to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of our opponents or life oppositenesses (or adversities) we are dealing with.

In that case, I think we can associate “analyzing” with “competing”, and come back to our considerations of the feedback loop between “experience” and “experiment”.

Then we can say that to “experiment with experience” or “experience experimentation” we have to compete with ourselves, with others or random oppositenesses (or adversities). For example, to compete:
— to do some work faster, with less effort, easier, more interesting, less boring, etc.,
— to ensure that someone is not better than us in some work, business, play, competition, etc.,
— to make things done faster, more efficiently, simpler, etc.,
— to make problems resolved faster, better, more spectacularly, etc.,
— and so on.

In summary, “skillful competition” can help us “experiment with experience” or “experience experimentation”.

***

Another argument justifying the use of the terms “experiment” and “experience” is that these concepts complement the definitions of Extraversion and Introversion. Let me remind you that these definitions (including “experiment” and “experience”) are as follows:

to have—object, case—experiment—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION

to be—subject, relation—experience—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION

We can see that close to the concept of “experiment” are the concepts—“subject, case”. It is because “experimentation” usually concerns some “objects” or “cases”. “Experimentation” often leads to achieving something, or simply to “having” something.

“Experimentation” also involves all sorts of “risks and opportunities”.

In turn, close to “experiencing” there are concepts—“subject, relation”. It is because “experiencing” we usually can associate with situations when we are (or we become) the “subject”. “Experimenting” we can also associate with “relations”. These “relations” can be of different kinds. Of course, the most important for our considerations about types of characters will be human relationships. In interpersonal relationships, we can mean both relationships with others and with ourselves.

Besides, we can also talk about relationships that we establish with various objects. For example, dishes, tools, machines, etc. When it comes to relations with objects, we have the feedback loop between Introversion and Extraversion. In the above definitions, we can see this feedback in this that the “relation” is part of definition of Introversion, and the “object” is part of Extraversion definition.

However, regardless of whether we deal with human relationships or relationships with objects, these relationships create our “experience”. Experience:
— on which we can rely;
— from which we can derive knowledge;
— which helps us make decisions;
— which makes us better at doing something;
— etc.

All in all, “experimenting” leads to “being” “someone”. Of course, we can simply “be” and consciously “experience” something without any excessive ambitions. However, in general, our “being” often, on the one hand, needs “protection” when we “experience” something unpleasant, painful, and unwelcome. And on the other hand, we need “promotion” to “be” someone appreciated, respected, valued, etc.

Thus, I think, the word “experiment” fits the definition of Extraversion, and the word “experience” fits the definition of Introversion.

Earlier I said that “experimenting” can be associated with the very ambiguous Polish word “załatwiać”. In English, it means, settle, arrange, fix, manage, negotiate, do, get, buy, steal, kill, etc. For our use in English maybe I create an abbreviation from “załatwiać”, that is, “arrange-fix-manage-get”.

I think, that in typical life, “arrange-fix-manage-get” has a lot to do with the “experimenting” attitude.

The word “załatwiać”, (that is, “arrange-fix-manage-get”) in Polish has a broad meaning and at the same time is very characteristic. Therefore, this word is a kind of symbol. It is often used in everyday language in many contexts.

This word came to mind when I was thinking about the types from the Extraversion area, that is, about types—Hot Air and Hot Fire. At some point, I realized that these types often “arrange-fix-manage-get” something. Of course, we can say all types of characters also often “arrange-fix-manage-get” something. However, in my opinion, “arrange-fix-manage-get” best suits these Hot Air and Hot Fire. These types often are led by “arrange-fix-manage-get”. They often give the impression that they are “arrange-fix-manage-get” something, even if they actually have nothing to “arrange-fix-manage-get”.

In turn, the concept of “experiencing” suits the most Introverted types, namely, Cool Water and Cool Earth. These types often are very involved in what they do. For example, they are very engaged in:
— the work they are doing;
— the conversation they are having;
— considerations that they are leading;
— time for rest that they are having;
— the entertainment in which they are involved;
— the tasks they are performing;
— problems they are solving;
— etc.

The Cool Water and Cool Earth types often give the impression that they have no intermediate mental states. They either get involved or regenerate. It is often difficult to say about them that they are somewhat “lukewarm”. But instead, we rather say that these types are either cold or hot.

Especially it may suit representatives of the type Cool Water. It is because they are usually “some”, and it is difficult to catch them in a situation when they are “lackluster or “dull”.

In turn, representatives of Cool Earth are often very involved in something. They often give the impression that based on observation of their behavior was created the saying “If you have too little time, find an extra job”.

Of course, Cool Water and Cool Earth types can be “lackluster”, but they prefer that no one should see them at that time. And if someone has to see them, then it has to be someone who is trusted or closely related. However, when, so to speak, they appear in public, there is no option that they will be the element of the background. According to them, instead of blending in the background is better:
— be a conductor or at least a soloist in the orchestra;
— be a “front-man” or a member of the team who is well-seen in the foreground;
— in the company be someone who attracts, intrigues and inspires and someone who is the most visible, interesting, spectacular, fabulous, magical, etc.;
— at work be someone who is extraordinary and who is full of panache and flair;
— in conversation be inspiring, influential, remarkable, etc.;
— and so on.

Therefore, for these types, it is difficult to be similar to others or to be one of many. The individual representative of those types is simply the “someone” or “sir someone”. That is, “the someone” who tries “to be” in any way.

Please note here that when I am writing about Cool Water and Cool Earth, I am writing about Introverted people. Unfortunately, in common understanding, Introverts have been associated with people who prefer to be isolated and withdrawn. In turn, Extraversion, (which is opposite to Introversion) is commonly associated with people who are sociable, engaged and open. All In all, the common understanding of Extraversion and Introversion went quite far away from this, what was thinking about it, C. G. Jung. That is the creator of Extraversion and Introversion concepts. I analyzed what Jung wrote about Introversion and Extraversion in the update 1.25. And I made there some conclusion which I am using in the Mandala of Characters.

Coming back to Introversion, unfortunately, the common understanding of it can be difficult to change, if it is possible at all. If the understanding of Introversion changes one day, it will rather take a long time. This fact was one of the reasons why I decided to create my new condensed definitions of Introversion and Extraversion. That is, two adaptive-defensive mechanisms (or general attitudes, or modes of psychic reactions) that Jung distinguishes.

Since I began to create definitions of Introversion and Extraversion, I also decided to create my definitions of Perceiving and Judging. These two next mechanisms were distinguished by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers.

ANALYSIS and SYNTHESIS

To the definitions of Perceiving and Judging, as I mentioned above, I want to add the following terms:

• analysis—to the definition of Perceiving, and
• synthesis—to the definition of Judging.

Probably most briefly we can say that:

• analysis is the reverse of the synthesis or synthesis is the reverse of analysis,
• synthesis links (or sums up), and
• analysis distinguishes (or differentiates).

These terms are used in many areas of life and science. I think that the definitions I am quoting below can initially tell us something about them.

In the considerations I make in this update, “analysis” is part of the definition of Perceiving, and “synthesis” we can find in the definition of Judging. Below, I am reminding these definitions:

to compete—action, movement—analysis—find and deal—
—PERCEIVING

to care—process, act—synthesis—planning and organization—
JUDGING

And I will also remind the diagram with adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

And I also remind the diagram, which only has:
— names of adaptive-defensive mechanisms (that is, Extraversion, Introversion, Perceiving, and Judging),
— and new terms that I introduce in this update (that is, experiment, experience, analysis, and synthesis).

As we can see in the diagram above:

• Analysis and synthesis are opposing to each other, but also have direct contact with each other.
• Both analysis and synthesis have a connection with experience and experiment. Thus, we can use experiment and experience during both analysis and synthesis.
• The way from analysis to synthesis (or vice versa) leads either through experiment or experience.

I think that, as in the case of experiment and experience, we can consider the following options for analysis and synthesis:

1. “Analysis” is opposite to “synthesis”, that is, these two concepts are directly connected.
2. The way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) leads through “experience”.
3. The way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) leads through “experiment”.

Note to point—1.
“Analysis” is opposite to “synthesis”, that is, these two concepts are directly connected.

Analyzing is related to the fact that thanks to analyzing, we can consider a problem from different sides. Thanks to this, we may something know, understand, explain, etc.

Analyzing can be an action that has many stages, and probably it is the most common in life. It means, when we analyze something new for us, we first analyze it to learn something about it at all. Later, when we analyze something again, it helps us know or understand it better than before. Next, we can come back to it many times, and each time thanks to subsequent analyses, we can learn more and more about it.

Synthesis can also be multi-stage. As in some process, initially or on trial, we combine something. Then we can consider whether what we have combined fits together? If it fits, then we can combine what we have previously combined with something else. And if it does not fit, then we can look for other matching elements, parts, ideas, concepts, substances, etc.

In this update, I add analysis and synthesis to the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms. Therefore, I treat analysis and synthesis as elements of mechanisms that help us adapt to something or defend against something.

When it comes to adapting to a situation or problem, we will try to analyze it. Analyze from different sides this what we have to face. In this process of analysis, we will try to get as much knowledge as possible on a given topic. This can help us in understanding the issue. Embracing it somehow with our mind. If we break something down into prime factors, we will know what it consists of? That is, we will know what we are dealing with? Then we can see individual elements of a problem or matter. We can look at each element. We can see which elements are known to us and which are unknown.

Then, we can pay attention to those elements that we do not yet know. It means:
— we can take a closer look at them;
— look for some information about them;
— look at what they are similar to;
— find out whether anyone maybe dealt with something similar to it;
— etc.

All in all, thanks to analysis adaptation to problem or matter will be easier for us.

In addition to the adaptation to something, analysis can help us defend against something. After all, as I mentioned above, analysis is an element (or tool) in the adaptive-defensive mechanism. When we want to defend ourselves against something, we basically do it like when we want to adapt to it. The difference here can be that when we look for ways to defend ourselves against something, then we can do it more intensively. Greater stress can accompany this. Stress often goes hand in hand with strong emotions that we have to deal with in some way.

Emotions and stress can disturb our analysis. Although, we can also react in this way, that stress and emotions can be for us a powerful driving force during analyzing the problem, which we need to defend ourselves from. When we manage to analyze something that threatens us, we can feel relieved. We calm down more or less because we know what we are dealing with. Thanks to analysis, we will learn the strengths and weaknesses of, so to speak, the “opponent”. This “opponent” will be a person who is making problems for us, Or it will be the adversities which appeared in our life. Further, thanks to the analysis, we can consider how to defend ourselves? We can even feel more confident as we know what preparations we need to make to defend ourselves effectively. It will be harder to surprise us. Thus, we can be calmer.

The analysis used to defend ourselves often concerns our psyche. It is because we analyze something that can make a negative impact on our psyche. For example:
— grieve us;
— make us sad;
— make us feel inferior, less confident;
— put us in an unpleasant mood;
— lead us into anxiety;
— make us afraid;
— make us embarrassed;
— etc.

Such an attitude that we will have to defend ourselves against something that can upset our psyche is often due to our past experiences. For example, unpleasant experiences or traumas that we had in the past. Our traumas can, therefore, cause us to prepare for defense against something that will not threaten us at all.

Of course, our sense of threat may also result from threats that are really connected with our traumas. Such connection will probably bring us a particularly high psychological burden.

However, no matter whether the threat is authentic, or it results from our traumas (or both at the same time), our psyche switches on analysis. In other words, our adaptive-defensive mechanism, which is Perceiving, turns on analysis to adapt to something or to defend against something.

Thanks to this, we will be able to deal better with the same (or similar) cases or problems. And if we will be able to deal with something, we will also manage it properly.

Of course, thanks to analyzing, we can also say that instead of facing some problem, we prefer to simply avoid it. And this can also be very beneficial to us if, in fact, any problems exceeds our ability to deal with it.

Let us now come to the reverse of analysis that is, to synthesis.

If we consider synthesis as the adaptive-defensive mechanism, then we will need it when, instead of analyzing, we need to synthesize something. Instead of decomposing something into prime factors, we will need to put something together.

I think that synthesis, as the adaptive-defensive mechanism, accurately describes the phrases like:
— “pull oneself together” or
— “bite on the bullet”, or
— “pull one’s sock up”.

In Polish, there is the phrase “take oneself in a handful”.

So, it is about the situation or problems in which we need, for example:
— to cool down,
— to get back self-control,
— regain balance,
— come to one’s senses,
— come to terms with,
— to regain consciousness,
— to hold back,
— ease down,
— to calm down,
— somehow relieve stress,
— recover,
— get steam up,
— etc.

From this, it follows that “put ourselves together” applies to the situation when we need or we have to:
— control ourselves;
— restrain ourselves;
— hold ourselves together;
— somehow regain peace or calm down;
— somehow get back strength again, or mobilize.

We have to have such an attitude, for example, when:
— we must continue some task, and we cannot stop or take a break;
— we have to hold out to the end of the task; otherwise, something may go wrong, or something must be done in a row from start to finish;
— when we are doing something, we must focus and remain calm;
— we have to control our emotions and give our best when we work with someone because from it depends on our joint success in the given task;
— we need to control our own emotions, focus and mobilize when we are helping someone, or we are taking care of, or we are saving somebody from some oppression;
— etc.

In addition to the situations mentioned above, we can also be in the middle of something. It means when we are in the process of implementing a plan. Once something is organized, and we must stick to it. We cannot withdraw from this, because we want it; or we promised it to someone, or we need to do it; etc.

Another example is when we work on, or we create something. Then it is desired to continue our work or the act of creation. So, we need as less as possible be distracted during work. It is because, after unnecessary breaks, we can “lose track”. For example, we can forget something that we worked with, and we will lose time to remind it back. Also, we may want to finish something as soon as possible. Or we want to devote as much time as possible to achieve the best possible effect of our work.

If we are talking about work or a creative act, I think that they are a kind of synthesis. For example, a work of art is often a synthesis that combines elements, techniques, methods, styles … that together create a work that can be interesting, revealing, unique, surprising, new, uncommon, moving, touching, puzzling, etc.

Similarly, many works are a kind of synthesis. For example, when we have to simultaneously demonstrate some knowledge, skills, attention, focus, planning and organization. For instance, such synthesis must often show in their professions: drivers, chefs, artists, doctors, etc. In fact, in every job, we have to do some synthesis of our knowledge, skills, planning and organization.

In a sense, it can be said that synthesis is the proper care for the task which we do. We must take care of many elements of our work and appropriately coordinate them together.

Speaking of synthesis, I think it is worth to mention about one great philosopher. That is, about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel, among others, worked on dialectics.

Hegel’s dialectics is a method of reasoning that helps reconcile various contradictions, opposites, contraries, contrasts, etc.

In his view, dialectics is a continuous process of transition from one contradiction to another. If we alternate from one opposition to another, we will finally somehow connect them together. Therefore, by balancing between contradictions, we can reconcile them with each other. All in all, then, somehow, there will be a synthesis of contradictions, oppositions, poles, inverses, contrasts, etc.

The Hegel dialectical process consists of:

• thesis — for example, idea, view, statement, assertion, etc.,
• antithesis — denial of thesis,
• and synthesis — combining contradictions, oppositions, poles, inverses, contrasts, etc.

The synthesis in itself may later become a thesis, which over time will be followed by the corresponding antithesis. Then it comes to balancing between this thesis and antithesis until they unite together and become another synthesis. And so on, thanks to the creation of subsequent synthesis from the emerging thesis and antithesis, in our lives, various development processes take place.

Since I put the concept of synthesis on the Mandala of Characters, we may consider here, what is equivalent of thesis and antithesis on the Mandala?

I think that the thesis and antithesis can be associated with two concepts I mentioned earlier in this update. It means I think about “experience” and “experiment”. Specifically:

• experience—would correspond to the thesis or antithesis, and
• experiment—would correspond to the thesis or antithesis.

It may look a little strange, but basically depending on the situation:

• the experience can be the thesis or antithesis for the experiment,
• the experiment can be the thesis or antithesis for the experience.

Therefore, thanks to experiments, we can undermine the experience. That is something that is already established, used, proofed, confirmed, etc.

In turn, thanks to experiences, that is, attempts to recreate (or replicate) a particular experiment, we can undermine or confirm it.

On the Mandala of Characters, we can clearly see that the reverse of the synthesis is analysis. Thus, we can also say that the above considerations about synthesis may also correspond to the analysis.

Specifically, I think that Hegel’s dialectics we can extend to the other side of the Mandala. I mean that:
— thesis and antithesis not only lead to synthesis,
— but thesis and antithesis can also lead to analysis.

So, using terms that are on the Mandala of Characters, we can say that:
— experiences and experiments not only lead to synthesis,
— but experiences and experiments also lead to analysis.

And at this point, I will stop at this conclusion. I will only say that in philosophy there is a whole great area called analytical philosophy (or analytic philosophy). Interestingly, analytic philosophy was created as a protest against Hegelianism. We can learn something about analytic philosophy, for example on Wikipedia web-page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

In general, however, the philosophical analysis itself was not created after Hegel. It existed in all epochs in which philosophy was used. In ancient times, it was cultivated, for example, by Socrates and Aristotle.

In short, philosophical analysis can be understood, among others, as:

• break down some concepts into prime factors,
• defining thoughts precisely,
• trying to explain specific concepts in a clear, accurate, and strictly defined way.

If we need to be precise and specific, we must pay special attention to the language we use in the analysis. In analytical philosophy, therefore, the study of language (both colloquial and specialized) is very important.

I will not go further into the secrets of analytical philosophy. It is because I am not a philosopher, and I will not do it better than philosophers specializing in this field.

And now, I think that we can assume that both Hegelian and analytical philosophy is correct. It means:
— Hegel’s philosophy is a fascinating view at synthesis, and
— analytic philosophy shows a fascinating perspective on analysis.

And it is important to us now that both synthesis and analysis have their stable ground in the history of human thought. So, we have very rich source of knowledge for further reflections.

In this work, that is, work relating to types of characters, we do not have to decide that is right, and what is wrong? Instead, we are interested in what particular types feel or think:
— what is right for them,
— what they prefer to use,
— what they like to follow,
— etc.

Each type simply has its own reasons and preferences.

Let us return to the consideration that I am carrying out in this update. It means, to the adaptive-defensive mechanisms and learning methods that are part of these mechanisms.

In conclusion, I think that it is essential for us that we have four sides of learning, namely:

• experience and experiment, and
• synthesis and analysis.

These four learning methods are elements of the following adaptive-defensive mechanisms:

• experience—is an element of—Introversion,
• experiment—is an element of—Extraversion,
• synthesis—is an element of—Judging, and
• analysis—is an element of—Perception.

Earlier I showed which types of Characters prefer experience and experiment. Thus, now I will show which types prefer to use synthesis and analysis in their Conscious State.

In the diagram above, we can see that:

• above the definition of Judging, I put the types Moist Air and Wet Water, and
• below the definition of Perceiving, I put the types Dry Fire and Dry Earth.

The above types have the same location as on the Mandala of Characters.

In the above and previous diagrams, we can see that “analysis” and “synthesis” are oppositional to each other. I am mentioning it again. This time I am doing it to point out that in the above diagram we can see that “analysis” and “synthesis” are directly connected with each other. There is also the direct connection between “experience” and “experiment” that I considered earlier in this update. It means I talked about the fact that they have direct contact with each other, and they can communicate between themselves. So, there is a kind of feedback loop between “experience” and “experiment”.

Analogous feedback loop also occurs in the case of “analysis” and “synthesis”.

Thus, we may ask, how does the feedback manifest itself in the case of “analysis” and “synthesis”?

I think that direct connection (and feedback) we can describe by the phrases:
— “analyze synthesizing”, or
— “synthesize analyzing”.

In a typical life, the terms “analyze synthesizing” or “synthesize analyzing” rather are not widely used. If we are talking about them, we simply talk about “analysis” and “synthesis”. For example, in life, we often deal with “visual analysis and synthesis”. An example of such analysis and synthesis is, for instance, putting a jigsaw puzzle together. During arranging the jigsaw puzzle, we analyze the shapes and images on individual parts of the puzzle. And we synthesize one element after another until we create the image they present together.

Thus, putting together pieces of the puzzle, we can classify as “synthesizing analyzing”. We synthesize, that is, we put together pieces of the puzzle that we have analyzed. It means we analyzed the images on particular parts of the puzzle and their individual shapes.

And when we are dealing with the opposite situation, that is, “analyzing synthesizing”?

I think that an example of “analyzing synthesizing” could be, for example:

• Working out what and how the dish was made? For example, what ingredients were used to make it and how it was prepared; etc.?
• Analyzing how the picture was painted? For example, what paints and colors were used; what painting techniques were used; on what painting is made; etc.?
• Analyzing how a piece of music was performed? For example, what instruments were used; what style it is played in; how it was played on individual instruments; etc.?
• Analyzing how a tool, instrument, part, etc. was made. For example, what elements it consists of; how the individual elements are connected together; how the particular parts were made; etc.?
• Etc.

Interestingly, if we “analysis of synthesizing” put into practice, it will be “synthesizing of our analysis”. For example, when we try to recreate a dish that we ate in a restaurant or at some party. Then we will first “analyze the synthesizing” of this dish, that is, we will consider what was used to it and how it was made? Next, we will do “synthesis of our analysis”, and we make our own version of the given dish. Of course, we can also look at the internet to see if somewhere there is a similar recipe for the dish that we want to make. Often, however, someone’s recipe that we found on the internet, we also analyze. And we use or not the ideas of others to our version of the dish. Because we like experimenting, then it can come to us desire, to do something even better than others.

So, all in all, it turns out that “analyzing of synthesizing” and “synthesizing of analyzing” can alternate with each other. That is, we have a feedback loop between these two options.

It can be further said that feedback also occurs between Perceiving and Judging. It is because, in this update, I add “analysis” to the definition of Perceiving, and “synthesis” to the definition of Judging. Thus, the feedback between analysis and synthesis also means feedback between Perceiving and Judging mechanisms.

Such feedback between Perceiving and Judging can also occur in the types of characters that we can find in areas of analysis and synthesis. It means feedback in these types will occur between their Conscious and Unconscious States. On the Mandala of Characters, we can see that it applies to the types: Dry Earth, Dry Fire, Moist Air, and Wet Water. Specifically:

• Dry Earth and Dry Fire:
  — in Conscious State, they use Perceiving, and
  — in Unconscious State, they use Judging.
  So, these types “analyze synthesizing” in the Conscious State, and “synthesize analyzing” in the Unconscious State.
• Moist Air and Wet Water:
  — in Conscious State, they use Judging, and
  — in Unconscious State, they use Perceiving.
  So, in the Conscious State, these types “synthesize analyzing”, and in the under the influence of the Unconscious State, they “analyze synthesizing”.

Thus, how in these types can manifest “analyzing of synthesizing” or “synthesizing of analyzing”?

• Perceiving types that are mainly Dry Earth and Dry Fire.

  Dry Earth and Dry Fire tend to “analyze synthesizing”. So, in the Conscious State, they like to “analyze”, and under the influence of the Unconscious State they like to “synthesize”.

  Thus, these types like breaking everything down into the prime factors. When something is broken down into parts, then we can see which parts are the strengths of something and which are the weaknesses?

  Such recognition of strengths and weaknesses helps these types to compete with others or with themselves. It is because these types often tend to compete.

  In my reflection about these types, I also used a hunter’s metaphor. That is, like hunters, these types like to travel across some areas, and thoroughly analyze the to see where something interesting can be hunted.

  In this case, the synthesis will be given surroundings, and the analysis will be perceiving and recognizing essential details that can lead the hunter to some prey. Such details could be, for example, some clue, trail, track, etc.

  In general, we can talk not only about some real areas. That is, we walk, and we are somewhere between the place where we left, and the place where we are going to. We can also talk here about the areas that occur in our mind and in our psyche. Then we can walk or move through, for example:
  — some issues,
  — problems to be solved,
  — matters to be dealt with,
  — dreams, fantasies, ideas, intentions,
  — thoughts and opinions on various topics,
  — etc.

  Therefore, Dry Fire and Dry Earth in their Conscious State may be characterized by the fact that they do not act strictly to some plan. Often they do not like to be systematic and organized. Instead, they are open to new opportunities, occasions, chances, methods, and ways that may appear at any time. According to these types, it is worth to wait before doing something as long as possible. Because at the last moment it may turn out that something can be done better, easier, faster, more profitable, etc. It is not worth ending something too quickly, because we can lose some opportunity, thanks to which we will be better than others. Or we will somehow distinguish ourselves from others.

  After all, nobody knows when any “prey” may appear. As I mentioned a moment ago, Dry Fire and Dry Earth in their Conscious State are like hunters of some sort. Hunters who think that it is impossible to plan everything when there can yet appear some “specimen to hunt”. Then, it often does not depend on us. Thus, we have to be vigilant and observe what is happening around? Because at any moment there may be some extraordinary opportunity that may not happen again.

  What can we gain in this way that we count on some occasion?

  For example, we can use the opportunity to do something with as little effort and commitment as possible. Also, if we have an occasion, it is worth taking the opportunity to use others. Others who in some way, can do for us some or all of our task.

  In short, it is worth taking advantage of every opportunity that allows us to take shortcuts. Therefore, it is worth waking here are there. Otherwise, we will not see various shortcuts. Ideally, when these shortcuts are not known by others. Thanks to such shortcuts we will be able to distinguish ourselves, and they can give us a big advantage over others.

  In life, of course, can turn out that shortcuts are more difficult than expected. And they need much more effort than systematic, organized and strictly following earlier established plan. However, it such cases, appropriate and quick analysis can also help us cope with various unexpected challenges that require a lot of extra effort and sacrifices.



• Judging types that are mainly Moist Air and Wet Water.

  Moist Air and Wet Water may tend to “synthesize analyzing”. So, in Conscious State, they like to “synthesize”, and under of influence of their Unconscious State they tent to “analyze”.

  Such a synthesis of what has been analyzed can be like acting according to the established plan. However, as is known, in life when we following the established plan, it turns out that it needs to be corrected and some improvements should be made in it. Therefore, we need to make some additional analyzes regularly. And we need to make some corrections according to these up-to-date analyses.

  Together with the plan goes hand in hand with the organization. We have to organize everything well before we put the plan into practice. Organizing something means matching many tasks and works together, and preparing in advance the right things that we will need. Besides, everything has to be coordinated in the right time and in the appropriate place. That is, everything has to be organized in the proper “time and space”. Then, all in all, in organizing something we need proper synthesis.

  And of course, even the best organization will not predict everything that can happen. Then we have to organize something unforeseen. And to do this, we carry out additional analysis to make some corrections to our earlier synthesis.

  I think, that this tendency to synthesize various analyzes is emphasized by the name of the Moist Air in the Enneagram. This type in the Enneagram is called—The Perfectionist. Such a name we can find in the book “Enneagram” written by Helen Palmer, or on the website:
  http://www.enneagram.com/enneagram.html

  Striving for perfection often involves perfect coordinating together at the right time and place, the right things, skills, and physical and mental attitude. Therefore, in pursuit of perfection is needed extensive and accurate analysis. Of course, as in the pursuit of Perfection, it turns out that still appearing new details, which need to be “polished” and they need extra attention. Then, additional, accurate analysis can help. Thanks to this analysis, we can learn how we can refine something even more.

  In turn, in the Enneagram, type Wet Water by Helen Palmer is called—The Giver. I think that we can refer it here to the “Caring Social Mentality” which Paul Gilbert writes about in his book “Mindful Compassion”.

  “Caring Social Mentality” we can directly associate with the supporting attitude to people and animals. Caring, however, we can also associate with the care we devote to the tasks that we have to do. That is, to care that we must devote to proper planning and organization. Anyway, regardless of whether our concern we are referring to people and animals or towards tasks to do, in both cases, we need everything properly plan and organize.

  Further, to the above, in life, we have a lot of tasks to which is needed the cooperation with others, because one person is not able to cope with them alone. Then, to accomplish the given tasks, we need a suitably selected team of people. In this case, we need to properly plan and organize not only the task itself. For this, we also need everything properly plan, organize, and assign individual members of the team to suitable for them, parts of the job to do. All in all, we have to take care of everything well, that is, accordingly synthesize.

  In summary, “planning and organization” often involves “synthesizing of analyzing”. That is, is needed here the feedback loop between synthesis and analysis.

Note to point—2
The way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) leads through “experience”.

In this case, the way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) is not direct. It leads through “experience”.

Here, to “synthesize analyzing” or to “analyze synthesizing”:
— we need to replicate or recreate someone’s experiment, and by this, we will get our own experience,
— or we need to rely on personal experience which we got before in our life.

When it comes to conducting someone’s experiments, it may be, for example, be related to the fact that we do:
— something to try, test, rehearse, etc.,
— to see, check, test, make sure, convince, etc.,
— learn to do something,
— etc.

Thanks to this, we can acquire the necessary knowledge and experience on a given topic.

When it comes to relying on someone else’s experience, that is, when we cannot do some experiments ourselves. For example, for the reason that given experiments:
— are expensive,
— require a lot of work,
— require a lot of time,
— require involving many people,
— etc.

In these cases, we often simply have no choice and we must rely on someone’s experience.

It may also be that we just have no desire to do something because we do not like it. Then we will be happy to take advantage of someone’s experience in a given area.

All in all, then, experiences can be very useful in making some “synthetic analysis” or “analytical synthesis”.

Note to point—3.
The way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) leads through “experiment”.

In this case, the way from “analysis” to “synthesis” (or vice versa) is also not direct. This time it leads through the “experiment”.

Here, to “synthesize analyzing” or to “analyze synthesizing”:
— we have to do some experiments ourselves,
— or we have to rely on experiments done by others.

When it comes to carrying out some experiments ourselves, it can, for example, be related to the fact that we are experimenting for this:
— to discover something,
— to confirm some of our predictions, hypothesis, speculations, etc.,
— to learn how to do something new, what others did not do yet,
— to deal with a new situation for us, when we cannot take advantage of the experience of others,
— to deal with unforeseen problems and tasks, and we have to improvise, (that is, experiment) to deal with them,
— etc.

So, thanks to experimenting, we can discover something interesting or deal with something new and unpredictable.

In situations where experiment exceed our capabilities, we must rely on others. This may be the case when, for example, the given experiments are:
— expensive,
— require a lot of work,
— require a lot of time,
— require the involvement of many people,
— etc.

And it can also be just that we do not desire to carry out these experiments.

All in all, therefore, experimenting can help us a lot in carrying some “synthetic analysis” or “analytical synthesis”.

This is how learning methods corresponding to adaptive-defensive mechanisms look like.

I present these methods and mechanisms yet in the table below.

I think, in general, we can say that we need learning methods to cope with constantly changing circumstances, realities, opinions, facts, events, etc. These are all kinds of variable factors that we have to deal with somehow regularly. And this coping often means that we have to continually learn how to deal with these changing factors.

Changing life factors we can further associate with such a concept as—variable.

Variables are referred, for example, in some research process. That is:
— during the experiment,
— or during so-called replication, that is, during reconstructing of the experiment. So, it is then when we are getting experience.

Synthesis and analysis are also associated with experience and experiment.

So, I think we can say that “variables” apply to both:
— the opposition pair experiment—experience,
— and another opposition pair synthesis—analysis.

“Variables” can be divided into:

• dependent, and
• independent.

“Dependent variables” are those on which we have influence, which depends on us (or they are up to us).

And “independent variables” are those on which we have no influence, which do not depend on us (or they are not up to us).

In life, if we use the above analogy to “variables”, we can meet them at every step. For example, if we are coffee lovers, then we have such variables:

• The dependent variables, it means, the amount and strength of coffee, namely:
  — what kind or type of coffee we will make for ourselves,
  — and how many teaspoons we use to brew a cup of coffee.
• The independent variables, it means, what effect a given coffee and its strength will have on us. This effect can be, for example:
  — the degree of stimulation,
  — how long will we have more energy,
  — will we work better,
  — will we be able to focus more,
  — will we be able to sleep afterwards,
  — how will we feel when the coffee stops working,
  — etc.

For example, if we are doing some work:

• The variables dependent on us will be:
  — what work we do,
  — how long,
  — what effort do we put in,
  — what tools and protective clothes we use for it,
  — etc.
• The variables independent of us will be:
  — tiredness after work, which we will be not able to do anything with, and we will need rest,
  — the amount of sleep we need to regenerate the body;
  — working conditions, for example, when we have to deal with adverse weather conditions, that is, when it is too cold, too warm, too wet, too windy, too dry, etc.,
  — we have no influence on management at work, and we must work on equipment that does not suit us,
  — mental state during and after work, it means, we may have some unpleasant situations at work related to, for example, work with people, after which we will need some time to recover,
  — and many others.

Summarized learning methods, (that is, experience, experiment, synthesis, and analysis) help us to deal with our dependent and independent life variables. Thanks to this, “variables” become something more solid and permanent. So, if we use the analogy to mathematics here, “variable” becomes “constant”. (In mathematics, “constant” is the opposite of “variable”).

We can, therefore, say that thanks to learning methods, our “life variables” turn into “life constants”.

Of course, our “life constants” tend to be permanent for a longer or shorter time. It means, until we want to change them ourselves, or until some external circumstances force us to do so.

As it happens in life, it is not suitable for us if we are dealing with too many “variables”, or if we are dealing with too many “constants”. An excess of “constants” can limit our development. And excess of “variables” can make our life very uncomfortable and stressful. So, we have to look for some “golden mean” between “constants” and “variables”.

The “golden mean” is a theory used already in ancient times. Among others by Aristotle. And this theory, indeed, during the centuries was and is always current.

Admittedly, I will come back to the “golden mean”, because it is a fascinating theory.

And now, I will finish my reflections on learning methods related to adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

On this update, for now, I am going to finish creating adaptive-defensive mechanisms. I think, in the future, I will analyze these definitions more than once. So, it is likely that I will make some improvements. At the moment, however, after the considerations I have made, these definitions seem good enough to me.

Definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms, although I tried to make them as condensed as possible, they finally turned out to be quite large. And as it turns out, in the diagram of the Mandala of Characters, they will take up quite big space.

However, I think that putting them on the Mandala will be very helpful in learning and understanding individual types of characters.

In this case, I would remind you that the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms are as follows.

In addition to the definition of adaptive-defensive mechanisms, I have also included types of characters that we can find in the areas of particular mechanisms.

Below, I put in the table what is in the diagram above.

Above definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms (that is, Extraversion, Introversion, Perceiving, and Judging) on the general diagram of the Mandala of Characters will look as follows.

References: